Prophetic fulfillment and "failure"

Robert Chisholm has published an article on the nature of prophetic fulfillment (which is available online). To a great extent he's building on the work of Richard Pratt. I don't agree with everything Chisholm says in the article, but he draws some valid and important distinctions which often get lost sight of in discussions of Bible prophecy.

********************************* Two types of discourse are prominent in prophetic speech. The prophets utilize a combination of expository and hortatory discourse (traditionally referred to as “forthtelling”) to accuse their listeners of covenantal violations and to exhort them to change their behavior. They also employ predictive discourse (“foretelling”) to support their accusations and appeals. Though the basic categories of forth telling and foretelling have long been recognized, their relationship has not always been fully understood or appreciated. To appreciate how these discourse types contribute to prophetic speech, one must examine their language function.5 Expository-hortatory discourse has evaluative and dynamic functions. According to Macky, evaluative speech expresses the speaker’s “judgment on the quality of something,” while dynamic speech is “intended to change hearers personally.” As Macky observes, the latter can be affective (“aimed at arousing emotions”), pedagogical (“intended to illuminate darkness”), or transforming (“intended to change hearers’ attitudes, values and commitments, often by first arousing emotion and illuminating the darkness”).6 Predictive discourse can be performative or dynamic in function. Macky explains that performative language “performs some non-linguistic act, such as a judge decreeing, ‘The defendant is acquitted.’”7 Predictive discourse is performative when it announces God’s intentions unconditionally, for the prophecy sets in motion a series of events that leads to its fulfillment.8 Some popular views of prophecy, as well as some higher-critical approaches, assume that all or most predictions (at least those not marked by “if” or the like) are unconditional and therefore performative. However, an examination of the evidence suggests that prophetic predictive discourse is often (usually?) dynamic. It announces God’s intentions conditionally and is intended to motivate a positive response to the expository-hortatory discourse it typically accompanies. In this case, the prophecy’s predictive element is designed to prevent (in the case of a judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its fulfillment. Clendenen argues that the hortatory dimension is foundational. He asserts, “prophetic books are by nature hortatory.” Salvation oracles present “incentives motivating” change, while judgment oracles present “the deterrents to refusing the change.”9 He adds: Recognizing the nature of the prophetic books as coherent behavioral exhortation, that is, hortatory discourse, has important implications. In such discourses the most prominent element is naturally the behavioral change or changes being advocated. All the other elements in the discourse must relate to one or more of the commands or exhortations, and it would be a misuse of Scripture to listen to only one of the supplementary elements, such as predictive prophecy, without relating it to the central message of the book.10 1. Recognizing the principle of contingency. As noted above, God sometimes makes unconditional pronouncements about the future, but often his statements of intention are conditional. Sometimes conditions are explicitly stated (e.g. Isa 1:19–20), but more often they are unstated and implicit.11 Jeremiah 18 is a foundational text in this regard. The Lord sent Jeremiah to the potter’s house for an object lesson (vv. 1–2). As the potter shaped his pot according to a specific design, the clay was not pliable, so the potter reshaped it into a different type of pot (vv. 3–4). Just as the potter improvised his design for the uncooperative clay, so the Lord could change his plans for Israel (vv. 5–6). If the Lord intends to destroy a nation, but it repents when warned of impending doom, the Lord will relent from sending judgment (vv. 7–8). Conversely, if the Lord intends to bless a nation, but it rebels, the Lord will alter his plan and withhold blessing (vv. 9–10). God announces his intentions, but a nation’s response can and often does impact God’s decision as to what will actually take place.12 Pratt writes: “The universal perspective of Jer 18:1–12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions. Sincere repentance had the potential of affecting every unqualified prophecy of judgment. Flagrant disobedience had the potential of negating every unqualified prophecy of prosperity.”13 Pratt’s references to Joel and Jonah are quite appropriate, for both of these prophets support the basic principle expressed in Jeremiah 18. Joel urged the people to repent of their sins, reminding them that God is characteristically “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love” (2:13a; niv). Because of his merciful character he typically relents from sending punishment (2:13b). The Book of Jonah illustrates this. Jonah announced that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days (3:4). Uncertain if the message was unconditional or not (3:9), the king and the entire city repented. After all, the inclusion of a time limit might imply a window of opportunity for repentance. Sure enough, Nineveh’s response prompted God to withhold the threatened judgment. Jonah explained this was why he had refused to go to Nineveh in the first place. He knew God is merciful and characteristically relents from sending judgment when people repent of their sin (4:2). Two other classic texts depicting God relenting from judgment are Exod 32:9–14 and Num 14:11–20, where God announces his intention to destroy disobedient Israel and to start over with Moses. Moses interceded for the people, prompting God to relent. Later biblical commentary on the incidents supports the idea that Moses convinced God not to destroy the people (see Deut 9:13–20, 25–29; Ps 106:19–23). In Ps 106:23, Moses the intercessor is compared to one “standing in the gap.” In Ezek 22:30, the Lord uses this same expression when he says: “I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land, so I would not have to destroy it; but I found none” (niv). It seems apparent that if an intercessor like Moses had emerged, the Lord would have relented from his announced intention and would not have poured his anger out on the people (v. 31). Judgment was his consequent will; his antecedent will was that his people obey and live (Ezek 33:11). Perhaps the clearest example of God’s relenting from a conditional announcement of judgment is found in Mic 3:12. The prophet announces Zion will be leveled as a result of her leaders’ sins (vv. 1–11). As we know from Jer 26:18–19, King Hezekiah and the people understood this as a prophecy of imminent doom, undoubtedly at the hands of the Assyrian army (cf. Isa 36–37). But the statement must not be read as unconditional. In Jer 26:17–19, we discover that Micah’s warning prompted Hezekiah to repent, which in turn prompted the Lord to relent from sending the threatened judgment. On the basis of this later reflection on Micah’s prophecy, we can confidently affirm that the prophecy in its original setting was dynamic in function (reflecting God’s consequent will) and designed to prompt repentance (God’s antecedent will). Though the prophecy was retained in Micah’s anthology, the judgment was averted.18 In addition to the passages cited above, all of which refer to the Lord relenting, the principle of contingency in prophecy is evident in texts where God uses the word yl"Wa, “maybe, perhaps,” as he commissions his prophets. In Jer 26:3 (dated to 609 bc; cf. v. 1), the Lord commissions Jeremiah to preach in the temple courtyard and then declares: “Perhaps (yl"Wa) they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent (niphal of µj"n;) and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done” (niv). The Lord makes a similar statement (dated to 605 bc; cf. Jer 36:1) in Jer 36:3 (cf. v. 7). In Ezek 12:3, the Lord instructs the prophet to perform an object lesson and then declares: “Perhaps (yl"Wa) they will understand, though they are a rebellious house” (niv). These statements highlight the role of human responsibility in the outworking of the divine plan and suggest that the fulfillment of certain prophecies was contingent upon human response. Contingency is also apparent in Jer 34:2–5, where the prophet juxtaposes two seemingly contradictory predictions about Zedekiah. Though no conditional sentence appears, the prophet juxtaposes the options that lie before the king, beginning with God’s consequent will (judgment) followed by his antecedent will (mercy). This interpretation is verified by Jer 38:17–18, where the king’s options are presented in the form of conditional sentences. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_201009/ai_n56229572/?tag=content;col1